ReviewCancers2023
A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tools Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score for the General Population.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06922708 (Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer Prevention), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast Cancer Prevention: Protocol for a Feasibility Study in a Real-world Clinical Setting
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Genes Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Generalizability of an AI-based mammogram risk score (MRS) for breast cancer among diverse populations of women.Science advances · 2026Article
- Performance of different polygenic risk scores for breast cancer risk prediction: in-depth evaluations across large UK and Australian cohorts.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Decoding Breast Cancer: Emerging Molecular Biomarkers and Novel Therapeutic Targets for Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- MLH1 Promoter Variant -93G>A and Breast Cancer Susceptibility: Evidence from Azerbaijan.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Article
- Structural equation modeling of factors influencing women's attitudes, comfort and willingness toward risk-stratified breast cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Timely germline BRCA testing after invasive breast cancer promotes contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy and improves survival: an observational retrospective study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Observational
- Deriving a Mammogram-Based Risk Score from Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for 5-Year Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Following the High-Risk Patient: Breast Cancer Risk-Based Screening.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- Breast cancer: The good, the bad, and an important call to effective risk reduction strategies.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the form of a polygenic risk score (PRS) have emerged as a promising factor that could improve the predictive performance of breast cancer (BC) risk prediction tools. This study aims to appraise and critically assess the current evidence on these tools. Studies were identified using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 and were included if they described the development and/ or validation of a BC risk prediction model using a PRS for women of the general population and if they reported a measure of predictive performance. We identified 37 articles, of which 29 combined genetic and non-genetic risk factors using seven different risk prediction tools. Most models (55.0%) were developed on populations from European ancestry and performed better than those developed on populations from other ancestry groups. Regardless of the number of SNPs in each PRS, models combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors generally had better discriminatory accuracy (AUC from 0.52 to 0.77) than those using a PRS alone (AUC from 0.48 to 0.68). The overall risk of bias was considered low in most studies. BC risk prediction tools combining a PRS with genetic and non-genetic risk factors provided better discriminative accuracy than either used alone. Further studies are needed to cross-compare their clinical utility and readiness for implementation in public health practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.